I recently had the chance to review a wildlife picture exhibit put on in a city I was visiting. There was a gentleman there who had some amazing photos of a cougar and I went over and talked to him. I was quite shocked when he told me the pics were taken at a preditor rehad center near his home. It was at this point that I started questioning if people who exhibit pictures like this should state the events surrounding the pic. Now let me say at the outset that he in now way tried to hide this fact... my only thought was that the day this exhibit opened and if he wasn't there most, if not all, the people seeing his photos would assume they were taken in the wild and hence look at them which awe taking into account the difficulty of getting these shots in the wild.. well at least I would.

Now don't get me wrong... the pics were amazing but knowing they were taken in a rehab center definately makes me look at them from a different perspective... not taking anything away from the picture but definately from the encounter and where it took place.

I have for quite a few years always broken down wildlife into three categories for myself... again.. not to take anything away from the picture but to put the event in its proper context.

2) Urban Wildlife: animals who live in or frequent urban settings or areas with a large amount of human traffic including some of our largest national parks.

3) Zoos: Animals in zoos or rehab centers or the like

Again some of us may only have the option of visiting one or two of the above locals and if you love animals and animal photography you go where you can and areas you have easy access to but I do think it is important to distiguish between the above categories if you want to publish or sell your pics.

I have brought this up with friends and other photographers and to my surprise some called me elitest, stuck up, snobby for having this type of attitude. I never meant it that way or to come across that way. Others stated just because I was lucky enough to visit remote areas doesn't mean everyone else can and I totally agreed hence why I mentioned even if I didn't have the time to go to the places I do I would be hitting up local parks and everywhere else I could because I love wildlife... but I would make it clear where the pics were taken if I was to exhibit them or try and sell them.

All that being said I do know it takes completely different approaches to the three different forms of wildlife mentioned above and it does become a lot harder to capture wildlife shots in category 1 than it is in category 3.

Sooooo.. what do you all think.... am I just getting too intollerant at my old age or am I making any sense?

I was just reading about some people that are buying mice from the pet store and then baiting birds of prey to get great kill shots and shots with mice in claw. This completely put me off, now I will be second guessing every shot I see like that as to weather it's "genuine" or not.

I don't see a problem with people taking pictures in the local park, or even the zoo if it makes them happy. I get satisfaction from trying for the pictures in there true habitat, but not everyone can do that. Truthfully I don't have the equipment yet to do it in as many places as I would like.

I guess it's like you where saying it would just be nice if people would disclose the conditions the picture was taken. If someone put next to there picture "Red Hawk with baited mouse from pet store in tow" I wouldn't want to buy it, maybe someone else would think that was creative and worth the money though?

Tricky one, and one I think that comes down to intent and use of the image. For example, I've pretty much only done category 2 and 3 above, and for category 3 I would usually comment where they were taken if I'm posting them generally. But I can see (commercial) applications where the image may be used and where it was taken isn't important.

I suppose another example of this was the wolf jumping over a gate photo in some wildlife photo competition not long ago... I remember seeing that and thinking it was a "wow" photo, until it was later revealed by the judges that they found the image was almost certainly a captive wolf and stripped the title, which was for truly wild photography.

So I guess in my view, there is no problem with either category, providing it isn't misrepresented.

In principle I have no problem of anyone taking photos of animals in a zoo etc, its not like we all have access to various wildlife in the real world.
It would be interesting to have a discussion with someone like David Attenborough about this, I am sure the same applies to the documentary works. I would expect that there has been documentaries out there that would have had some sort of baiting or other clever tricks to get the right shot.

Ultimately, I would hope expect that a real wild photo, just like a real documentary would stand out over something that is set up. Just like film crews spend month filming to get the shot, a real wild shot would take a lot of time and effort.
Couldn`t imagine D Attenborough showing us a documentary about lions and film it from a zoo.
I was on the beach fishing one day and used bait ( frozen pilchards) to feed the local kite population by throwing them in the air. I got a few good photos of them catching the fish and then trying to get them from each other. Would I have used live mice, no of course not.

I guess it comes down to your own morality, integrity and reputation. I would hop that people are honest about how and where they got their shots.

I wonder if the copyright is different when you take photos of other people's animals e.g. zoo and wildlife parks.

If you want commercial usage of a persons image you have to get a release signed and the same is true of recognisable designs cars, bottle shapes, logos etc.

So if you want to use the image of a specific animal (which you would be in the case of a zoo) do you need permission from the animals owner?

I suppose that is where there is a defined difference, with wildlife in the wild you are getting a random animal. With captive creatures it is a specific animal and you can always go back to the same animal.

I've looked into the captive photography side regarding usage rights, and in short it depends on each one. I've found the private collections tend to allow unrestricted usage, since running the photo tours are essentially part of their income. The more standard zoos can vary and you need to check the small print. Some do specify no commercial photography without prior permission, but are still more than happy for anyone to go round with a fat SLR if they like for personal use.

Can of worms on this one...of course those worms are "captive" in a can I got booted out of an online monthly competition after entering/probably starting a discussion that turned into a war.
There was one participant that always seemed to be winning with shots of Gorillas big sad eyes.
Well she worked in a Gorilla rehab and my first comment was that the eyes looked so sad because it was in captivity.....
Next comment.....But that doesn't take away from the quality of the pic...
My next comment...It does if you can spend over an hour on the same critter taking the pic over and over to catch "the moment"...
Thats when the fight started....

I think the biggest differance for me is knowing that I have possibly belly crawled through a ditch,picked ten ticks off me and sat for 40 or more minutes being drained of blood by blackflies and mosquitoes in wet grass waiting to "get A shot" which inevitably might not be "THE" shot.
Fences/cages and captivity to me is a bit of a drawback but I'm not above using them to get a shot.
99.9% of my critters don't involve any of those and for me those shots make me the happiest wether they are "money shots" or not.
("Money shots" simply being a term vs getting paid for them.)
I take my pics to make me happy and what goes into them to get them all adds to that.

Wolf...those that called you an elitist or snobby......
Guilty of taking money for pics of critters they represented as wild when they weren't.
On top of that probably told stories at socials of how they got "the shot" of a "dangerous lion" in Africa somewhere.

Kev.. you're right about baiting birds of prey.. it's becoming a huge issue in pics for sale or entered into competitions.

Funny thing.. last night the was a show on oasis about a japanese flm maker spending a month in the sea of cortez trying to film blue whales under water. He is world renouned for his underwater photography. His best results in this case were at best average due to the cloudiness of the water due to crill. Even he admitted it but he was extatic about his results.. not because of the final professional qality of the work but because he has accomplished what he set out to in one of the hardest evvirons to do it in...

For those who dont know it when you see film of whales underwater they are usually shot in places like hawaii where the waters are pretty well barron of feed like crill making it all but crystal clear. Trying to shoot long ranges underwater in places like the sea of cotez or BC are all but impossible due to the density of feed like crill.

Again.. understanding the context of where a pic was taken and under what conditions tells a lot about the pic.

My discusion is only aimed at those trying to sell pics or get exposure from them. In those cases I feel it should be nessesary to disclose certain aspects.. especially if you use the word "wildlife" cause it implies just that... wild life.

kpr.. but sometimes its fun to open those cans... nothing like a good discussion as long as it remain civil.

I agree with you and feel much the same way - I am all for taking any type of photo you want, and any of your three categories for me can yield beautiful photos, and all are perfectly valid to sell, print, or publish. However, I strongly believe the location of the shoot should be fully disclosed - either in the title or description of the photo (if posting or displaying in a saleable manner) or upon inquiry for sale or publication (if unsolicited). The buyer decides how to use it, and how to present it - for example, if buying a large print of a panther's face staring through some trees to decorate a home, where it was taken is irrelevant - as long as the buyer knew it was at a zoo or rehab facility when he purchased it, he may use it and display it as he wishes. If publishing the photo in a generic article about panthers in an educational booklet, and commenting on the facial patterns or other general issues, the photo used can be from a zoo or rehab, again if it was disclosed upon purchase, and the publication isn't claiming the photo is wild. If the publication has an article about 'wild panthers' and showing them in their various wild behavior, and includes a shot in a zoo or rehab, then they are crossing the line. Likewise, if a buyer of your photo is misled into believing the shot is wild, then you as the photographer have crossed the line.

That's the way I look at it myself. I take many photos in the local wetlands reserves and Everglades - they technically don't fall into category 1, 2, or 3 above - they are sort-of a hybrid between 1 and 2 - they're not 'urban' areas, but they are in areas frequented by people, and therefore wildlife is much less inhibited in our presence. But I also always disclose the name of the wetlands and location it was taken. I have also shot wild animals and captive zoo animals - always with proper disclosure of both.

Living in Southern Ontario in the Greater Toronto Area, I guess close to 100% of my photos fall in to category 2 Urban Wildlife. I try to always state where the photo was taken.

Some time last year as I was walking through one of the parks I frequant I saw a few guys baiting an American Kestrel with mice, I manged to get off a few shots that tuned out really well. When I posted some photos on a local bird forum, I was immediately attacked by a coupe of members.

That started a big debate with some saying is it any different then using bird seed to lure in pearching birds.

Anyway... I do think it takes away a little knowing that the scene was staged.

"My discusion is only aimed at those trying to sell pics or get exposure from them. In those cases I feel it should be nessesary to disclose certain aspects.. especially if you use the word "wildlife" cause it implies just that... wild life."

I think that's the best way of putting it. I don't really consider a picture of a wolf at the zoo wildlife. Doesn't mean you can't have a great picture of a wolf from the zoo, just that a picture of a wolf in the wild hunting or doing other natural things is SPECIAL! Not as easy to get 15 yards from a wolf in the wild....

I take pictures 100% as a hobby, I could see myself 10 years down the road when I have the gear and the knowledge trying to sell a couple here and there, but I would never bait, it just doesn't feel right to me. I grew up hunting, and I would NEVER bait or hunt in a fenced area! The argument to me about bird feeders doesn't really work for me. I think having a bird feeder in your yard would be fun you could get picture all the time, but who is really going to buy a picture of a robin in a feeder? Nothing wrong with the pictures and there are amazing ones out there, they just are not "wildlife" to me.

thats what it was always aimed at kev.. those trying to sell pics.. but its nice to get everyone's input on this hense why I posted about it. I too have taken pics at rehab centers and other fenced in sights... do I prefer this type of shooting .. nope... but sometimes its fast and the only thing available...

I did pics for a brocure for a raptor rehab center once.. I have no issues with that at all and would do it again... but the intent is clear and it raised a lot of money for them.

Another place I would love to take pics at some day is a butterfly exhibit like the smithsonian one in washington.

It may be interesting to note here that quality sells, regardless of circumstance. For instance, if a hobbyist photographer takes his gear out in the wild, he may be able to get a mediocre shot of a wild animal (let's go ahead and use wolf). He takes his gear someplace, stalks around, stakes out an area, and manages to get a few shots of an elusive animal. He's happy with them, but they're nothing spectacular in terms of image quality-- perhaps they're lacking in sharpness, or aren't as closely cropped as he'd like them to be. Still-- a picture of a wild wolf is pretty cool, right?

Well, the issue here is that someone looking to buy a photograph of a wolf will likely tout quality over anything. They want that beautiful, crisp shot of a wolf's face, or the big alpha male looming in the snow in an aspen grove. When it comes time to buy, most people (and I assume, most magazines and other publications) would prefer the high-quality picture of the wolf in the zoo to the mediocre shot of the wolf in the wild. I doubt most buyers care where the image was taken, so long as it's appealing and looks good.

It's a shame really. Obviously this wouldn't apply so much to professionals, whose equipment lists and budgets allow them to be in "wild" areas insomuch that they get the crisp, appealing shot they're looking for, which sells just as well or better than the one from the zoo. But even then, I'd imagine many wildlife photographers resort to baiting at some point, and I can't imagine that the best wildlife photographers don't have a team of some sort working on their behalf to track down the animal they're after.

It is a bit disappointing from a hobbyist's point of view. In my mind, if you're not a professional, you'll have a hard time moving up in the photography world on "wild" shots alone. I'd suspect that most non-professionals selling their images take them in zoos or urban areas. And I doubt that most buyers care where the photograph was taken.